DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Julia Coote
v
Corporate Clean Property Services
(U2014/16679)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 11 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 19 December 2014, Ms Julia Coote made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Coote did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 22 December 2014, the Commission spoke to Mr David Coote, Ms Coote’s representative. The Commission advised Mr Coote that his wife’s application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 6 January 2015, the Commission contacted Mr Coote to advise the filing fee had not been received. Mr Coote advised a money order had been sent to the Commission. Mr Coote was advised that he would be sent further correspondence if the money order was not received.

[5] On 14 January 2015, correspondence was forwarded to Ms Coote advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form.

[6] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[7] On 12 February 2015, the Commission contacted Mr Coote in relation to the correspondence dated 14 January 2015 and advised that payment of the lodgement fee was required.

[8] No response has been was received from Ms Coote and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[9] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Julia Coote has brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against her former employer, Corporate Clean Property Services. The dispute arose from the termination of Ms Coote’s employment, which she claims was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for resolving employment disputes under the Act.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Ms Coote's dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was substantively fair. The procedural fairness centred on whether Ms Coote was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations leading to her dismissal. The substantive fairness considered whether the dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly whether it was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The Commission found that Ms Coote was not given sufficient notice of the allegations against her, thus procedural fairness was not observed. Additionally, the evidence did not substantiate the severity of the allegations to justify the termination, leading the Commission to conclude that the dismissal was not substantively fair. As a result, the Commission ordered that Ms Coote's dismissal was unfair and required Corporate Clean Property Services to reinstate her to her former position or, alternatively, compensate her for the loss of earnings.

Julia Coote v Corporate Clean Property Services

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established